From: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com (canslim-digest) To: canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Subject: canslim-digest V2 #2355 Reply-To: canslim Sender: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Errors-To: owner-canslim-digest@lists.xmission.com Precedence: bulk Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-No-Archive: yes canslim-digest Tuesday, April 23 2002 Volume 02 : Number 2355 In this issue: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Re: [CANSLIM] TASR Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) [CANSLIM] Investor's Corner Puzzlement ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 20:47:46 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally discounting tech stocks as "yesteryears winners", and I am going to disagree. yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so forth will take years before they become attractive from a CANSLIM perspective, if they ever do that. They will still attract lots of institutional dollars (including our mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech sector includes new names every day, and some of them will be the future CSCO that we will be discussing here in two or three years. Those are the ones that I am trying to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them and make money off them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all the better. I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel the top returns are still going to come from tech stocks, just names most of us have never heard of before, just like Cisco before it became so well known. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS are declining True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming, Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I considered them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...) - -------------------- I guess that also means that you missed the explosion in the gold shares. Fred Richards - -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Triffet Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) To play the devil's advocate (spelled IBD): > 1. M must be rising It has since 9/11. > 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and EPS True in any market. > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS are declining True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming, Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I considered them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...) > 4. The indexes are made up of '3' Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered down, hence the rise since last year. > 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes See 1. Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. WON says the new leaders won't be the ones from the last rally. That explains the lack of techs and the rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned above. One of the big problems I had was not committing to these new leaders because they looked like non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm still watching Homebuilders speed forward thinking they must run out of steam soon. - -Bill Triffet - ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > MessageI can't help thinking that we are in the period that represents "The Great CANSLIM Contradiction": > > 1. M must be rising > 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and EPS > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS are declining > 4. The indexes are made up of '3' > 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes > > Ian - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 19:59:54 -0500 From: "Katherine Malm" Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C1EB01.6F91B800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Woa there, Tom....I don't think anybody is "discounting tech = stocks"..... that would be nuts. My personal point of view is that the = time of "all tech all the time" is past us. New winners will of course = include tech, it's just that there are going to be far more industries = and business types represented in the next push than we saw in the late = '90's when, if it wasn't tech, it didn't go up. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:47 PM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally discounting tech = stocks as "yesteryears winners", and I am going to disagree. yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so forth will take = years before they become attractive from a CANSLIM perspective, if they ever = do that. They will still attract lots of institutional dollars (including = our mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech sector includes new = names every day, and some of them will be the future CSCO that we will be discussing here in two or three years. Those are the ones that I am = trying to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them and make = money off them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all the better. I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel the top = returns are still going to come from tech stocks, just names most of us have never = heard of before, just like Cisco before it became so well known. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and = EPS are declining True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout = Gaming, Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I = considered them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...) -------------------- I guess that also means that you missed the explosion in the gold = shares. Fred Richards -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Triffet Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) To play the devil's advocate (spelled IBD): > 1. M must be rising It has since 9/11. > 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and = EPS True in any market. > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and = EPS are declining True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout = Gaming, Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I = considered them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...) > 4. The indexes are made up of '3' Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered down, = hence the rise since last year. > 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes See 1. Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. WON says the new leaders = won't be the ones from the last rally. That explains the lack of techs and = the rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned above. One of the big problems I = had was not committing to these new leaders because they looked like non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm still watching = Homebuilders speed forward thinking they must run out of steam soon. -Bill Triffet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > MessageI can't help thinking that we are in the period that = represents "The Great CANSLIM Contradiction": > > 1. M must be rising > 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and = EPS > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and = EPS are declining > 4. The indexes are made up of '3' > 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes > > Ian - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C1EB01.6F91B800 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Woa there, Tom....I don't think anybody is "discounting tech = stocks".....=20 that would be nuts. My personal point of view is that the time of "all = tech all=20 the time" is past us. New winners will of course include tech, it's just = that=20 there are going to be far more industries and business types represented = in the=20 next push than we saw in the late '90's when, if it wasn't tech, it = didn't go=20 up.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom=20 Worley
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 = 7:47=20 PM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 S&P 500 forecast)

Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally = discounting=20 tech stocks as
"yesteryears winners", and I am going to=20 disagree.

yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so = forth=20 will take years
before they become attractive from a CANSLIM = perspective,=20 if they ever do
that. They will still attract lots of institutional = dollars=20 (including our
mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech = sector=20 includes new names
every day, and some of them will be the future = CSCO that=20 we will be
discussing here in two or three years. Those are the = ones that I=20 am trying
to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them = and=20 make money off
them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all = the=20 better.

I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel = the top=20 returns are
still going to come from tech stocks, just names most = of us=20 have never heard
of before, just like Cisco before it became so = well=20 known.

Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Richards" = <adrich@gte.net>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com= >
Sent:=20 Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] = S&P=20 500 forecast)


> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears = winners',=20 whose revenues and EPS
are declining

True. But, techs were=20 yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming,
Homebuilders, = consumer,=20 finance, medical, retail, etc...Though  I considered
them = cyclical,=20 they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them=20 all...)
--------------------
I guess that also means that you = missed the=20 explosion in the gold shares.

Fred = Richards

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On=20 Behalf Of Bill Triffet
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 = PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Subject:=20 Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)


To play = the=20 devil's advocate (spelled IBD):
> 1. M must be rising
It has = since=20 9/11.

> 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly = rising=20 revenues and EPS
True in any market.

> 3. We shouldn't be = buying=20 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS
are = declining

True.=20 But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout=20 Gaming,
Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail,=20 etc...Though  I considered
them cyclical, they led this = "hidden"=20 rally. (I missed them all...)

> 4. The indexes are made up = of=20 '3'
Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered = down,=20 hence
the rise since last year.

> 5. 'M' is defined as = '4', the=20 indexes
See 1.

Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. = WON=20 says the new leaders won't
be the ones from the last rally. That = explains=20 the lack of techs and the
rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned = above. One=20 of the big problems I had
was not committing to these new leaders = because=20 they looked like
non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm = still=20 watching Homebuilders
speed forward thinking they must run out of = steam=20 soon.

-Bill Triffet


----- Original Message = - -----
From:=20 "Ian" <ianstm@shaw.ca>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com= >
Sent:=20 Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] = S&P=20 500 forecast)


> MessageI can't help thinking that we are = in the=20 period that represents
"The Great CANSLIM = Contradiction":
>
>=20 1. M must be rising
> 2. We must be only buying stocks with = strongly=20 rising revenues and EPS
> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears = winners', whose revenues and EPS
are declining
> 4. The = indexes are=20 made up of '3'
> 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the = indexes
>
>=20 Ian



-
-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email.


-
-To = subscribe/unsubscribe, email=20 "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= =20 the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim". =20 Do not use quotes in your email.




-
-To=20 subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0064_01C1EB01.6F91B800-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:03:13 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: [CANSLIM] TASR no, Spencer, the difference between the issue (2.7 mil in this case) and the float (1.2 mil) usually represents the portion of the total issue owned by management. Those shares are already issued, and count in calculations of EPS for example. What I am suggesting as likely to happen in the future, because there are so few shares in the float (available for public trading), is that more shares will be put into the float either by a new Primary Offering (what I used to call a secondary since it followed the Initial Public Offering IPO), or Management will sell some of their otherwise restricted 1.5 mil shares, or they may do a stock split (which doesn't change the value of the investment, but does increase the number of shares issued, and thereby also creates a larger and more liquid float. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message ----- From: To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 6:29 PM Subject: [CANSLIM] TASR Tom: When you say "new offering", do you mean this: According to DGO, TASR has 2.7 Million Shares Outstanding and 1.2 Million in the Float. So if it offers new shares, it can offer any of the difference between the 2.7 Outstanding and the 1.2 Float. Is that correct? Also is the total difference between 2.7 and 1.2 all Treasury Stock, or would it be Treasury Stock + some other grade of the stock? As far as offering other stock, is it possible that TASR could do something else, for instance issue more shares (or is this-practical wise-infeasible)? In a message dated 4/22/2002 8:43:49 PM Eastern Daylight Time, stkguru@bellsouth.net writes: << ut didn't stop it today hitting a new high on 3X ADV, suggests to me the institutions are coming in on it. And with only 1.2 million shares in the float, there are not a lot of shares out there. I would expect either a stock split soon, new offering, or management to start selling >> jans - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 21:26:49 -0400 From: "Tom Worley" Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_0242_01C1EB0D.9445D030 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I don't know that I agree with you on this, Katherine. In the past 4 = decades or so, the best markets I have seen were all led by some form of = technology stocks, with financial stocks as the secondary support during = corrections and taking over brief leadership. Maybe that's my "rose = tinted glasses" thinking, because of my personal bias towards tech = stocks, certainly nothing I have tried to scientifically quantify. But = it is the area where I see the greatest potential for rapid earnings and = sales growth, and that certainly will remain as the primary driving = force in the markets. Some very sound and astute minds in this group, yours included, were = pointing out some months ago why homebuilders were turning into a bubble = that was likely to burst. Some have, and I even exited the last of mine = a while ago, content with the profits I had. But the best continue to = outperform everything because of their growth in both sales and = earnings. Regardless of the industry, earnings and sales growth will = rule the markets, and I see techs as offering the best opportunities for = that. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley - ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Katherine Malm=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:59 PM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Woa there, Tom....I don't think anybody is "discounting tech = stocks"..... that would be nuts. My personal point of view is that the = time of "all tech all the time" is past us. New winners will of course = include tech, it's just that there are going to be far more industries = and business types represented in the next push than we saw in the late = '90's when, if it wasn't tech, it didn't go up. Katherine ----- Original Message -----=20 From: Tom Worley=20 To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=20 Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 7:47 PM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally discounting tech = stocks as "yesteryears winners", and I am going to disagree. yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so forth will take = years before they become attractive from a CANSLIM perspective, if they ever = do that. They will still attract lots of institutional dollars (including = our mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech sector includes new = names every day, and some of them will be the future CSCO that we will be discussing here in two or three years. Those are the ones that I am = trying to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them and make = money off them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all the better. I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel the top = returns are still going to come from tech stocks, just names most of us have never = heard of before, just like Cisco before it became so well known. Tom Worley stkguru@bellsouth.net AIM: TexWorley ----- Original Message ----- From: "Fred Richards" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and = EPS are declining True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout = Gaming, Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I = considered them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...) -------------------- I guess that also means that you missed the explosion in the gold = shares. Fred Richards -----Original Message----- From: owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com [mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Bill Triffet Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 PM To: canslim@lists.xmission.com Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) To play the devil's advocate (spelled IBD): > 1. M must be rising It has since 9/11. > 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and = EPS True in any market. > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and = EPS are declining True. But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout = Gaming, Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail, etc...Though I = considered them cyclical, they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them all...) > 4. The indexes are made up of '3' Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered down, = hence the rise since last year. > 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes See 1. Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. WON says the new leaders = won't be the ones from the last rally. That explains the lack of techs and = the rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned above. One of the big problems I = had was not committing to these new leaders because they looked like non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm still watching = Homebuilders speed forward thinking they must run out of steam soon. -Bill Triffet ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ian" To: Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast) > MessageI can't help thinking that we are in the period that = represents "The Great CANSLIM Contradiction": > > 1. M must be rising > 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly rising revenues and = EPS > 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and = EPS are declining > 4. The indexes are made up of '3' > 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the indexes > > Ian - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0242_01C1EB0D.9445D030 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't know that I agree with you on this, = Katherine. In=20 the past 4 decades or so, the best markets I have seen were all led by = some form=20 of technology stocks, with financial stocks as the secondary support = during=20 corrections and taking over brief leadership. Maybe that's my "rose = tinted=20 glasses" thinking, because of my personal bias towards tech stocks, = certainly=20 nothing I have tried to scientifically quantify. But it is the area = where I see=20 the greatest potential for rapid earnings and sales growth, and that = certainly=20 will remain as the primary driving force in the markets.
 
Some very sound and astute minds in this = group, yours=20 included, were pointing out some months ago why homebuilders were = turning into a=20 bubble that was likely to burst. Some have, and I even exited the last = of mine a=20 while ago, content with the profits I had. But the best continue to = outperform=20 everything because of their growth in both sales and earnings. = Regardless of the=20 industry, earnings and sales growth will rule the markets, and I see = techs as=20 offering the best opportunities for that.
 
Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----=20
From: Katherine Malm=20
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 8:59 PM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500=20 forecast)

Woa there, Tom....I don't think anybody is "discounting tech = stocks".....=20 that would be nuts. My personal point of view is that the time of "all = tech all=20 the time" is past us. New winners will of course include tech, it's just = that=20 there are going to be far more industries and business types represented = in the=20 next push than we saw in the late '90's when, if it wasn't tech, it = didn't go=20 up.
 
Katherine
----- Original Message -----
From:=20 Tom=20 Worley
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 = 7:47=20 PM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: = [CANSLIM]=20 S&P 500 forecast)

Fred, this group seems to be pretty universally = discounting=20 tech stocks as
"yesteryears winners", and I am going to=20 disagree.

yes, I think the CSCO, ERICY, LU, MSFT, INTC, and so = forth=20 will take years
before they become attractive from a CANSLIM = perspective,=20 if they ever do
that. They will still attract lots of institutional = dollars=20 (including our
mutual fund dollars, unfortunately). But the tech = sector=20 includes new names
every day, and some of them will be the future = CSCO that=20 we will be
discussing here in two or three years. Those are the = ones that I=20 am trying
to find now, and as I find them, find a point to buy them = and=20 make money off
them. If I can hold the best for a few years, all = the=20 better.

I will still look at other sectors, but personally feel = the top=20 returns are
still going to come from tech stocks, just names most = of us=20 have never heard
of before, just like Cisco before it became so = well=20 known.

Tom Worley
stkguru@bellsouth.net
AIM:=20 TexWorley
----- Original Message -----
From: "Fred Richards" = <adrich@gte.net>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com= >
Sent:=20 Tuesday, April 23, 2002 4:08 PM
Subject: RE: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] = S&P=20 500 forecast)


> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears = winners',=20 whose revenues and EPS
are declining

True. But, techs were=20 yesteryears winners. This years? How bout Gaming,
Homebuilders, = consumer,=20 finance, medical, retail, etc...Though  I considered
them = cyclical,=20 they led this "hidden" rally. (I missed them=20 all...)
--------------------
I guess that also means that you = missed the=20 explosion in the gold shares.

Fred = Richards

-----Original=20 Message-----
From: owner-canslim@lists.xmis= sion.com
[mailto:owner-canslim@lists.xmission.com]On=20 Behalf Of Bill Triffet
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2002 12:02 = PM
To: canslim@lists.xmission.com=
Subject:=20 Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] S&P 500 forecast)


To play = the=20 devil's advocate (spelled IBD):
> 1. M must be rising
It has = since=20 9/11.

> 2. We must be only buying stocks with strongly = rising=20 revenues and EPS
True in any market.

> 3. We shouldn't be = buying=20 'yesteryears winners', whose revenues and EPS
are = declining

True.=20 But, techs were yesteryears winners. This years? How bout=20 Gaming,
Homebuilders, consumer, finance, medical, retail,=20 etc...Though  I considered
them cyclical, they led this = "hidden"=20 rally. (I missed them all...)

> 4. The indexes are made up = of=20 '3'
Techs led the last big bull. The indexes are far more watered = down,=20 hence
the rise since last year.

> 5. 'M' is defined as = '4', the=20 indexes
See 1.

Of course I know it's not that cut and dried. = WON=20 says the new leaders won't
be the ones from the last rally. That = explains=20 the lack of techs and the
rise in the "boring" stocks mentioned = above. One=20 of the big problems I had
was not committing to these new leaders = because=20 they looked like
non-exciting areas to me. Boy was I wrong! I'm = still=20 watching Homebuilders
speed forward thinking they must run out of = steam=20 soon.

-Bill Triffet


----- Original Message = - -----
From:=20 "Ian" <ianstm@shaw.ca>
To: <canslim@lists.xmission.com= >
Sent:=20 Tuesday, April 23, 2002 9:45 AM
Subject: Re: "M" (was Re: [CANSLIM] = S&P=20 500 forecast)


> MessageI can't help thinking that we are = in the=20 period that represents
"The Great CANSLIM = Contradiction":
>
>=20 1. M must be rising
> 2. We must be only buying stocks with = strongly=20 rising revenues and EPS
> 3. We shouldn't be buying 'yesteryears = winners', whose revenues and EPS
are declining
> 4. The = indexes are=20 made up of '3'
> 5. 'M' is defined as '4', the = indexes
>
>=20 Ian



-
-To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email.


-
-To = subscribe/unsubscribe, email=20 "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= =20 the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim". =20 Do not use quotes in your email.




-
-To=20 subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com"
-In= the=20 email body, write "subscribe canslim" or
-"unsubscribe = canslim".  Do=20 not use quotes in your email. - ------=_NextPart_000_0242_01C1EB0D.9445D030-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2002 18:35:55 -0700 From: "Harold Josephson" Subject: [CANSLIM] Investor's Corner Puzzlement This is a multi-part message in MIME format. - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_001_003C_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0" - ------=_NextPart_001_003C_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by demetrius.hosting.pacbell.net id VAA28883 Tuesday=92s Investor=92s Corner seemed to illustrate that following the W= ON rule of selling when a stock has dropped 8% would have shaken you out of all o= f the top 12 winners of the 1997-2000 period. I am puzzled by the message here. Don=92t follow the WON rule? Thanks Harold Josephson Tel: 323.850.1333 Fax: 323.512.8968 hj@hjosephson.com - ------=_NextPart_001_003C_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Tuesday’s = Investor’s Corner seemed to illustrate that following the WON rule of selling when a stock has = dropped 8% would have shaken you out of all of the top 12 winners of the = 1997-2000 period.  I am puzzled by = the message here.  Don’t follow = the WON rule?

 

Thanks

 

Harold = Josephson

Tel:   = 323.850.1333

Fax:  = 323.512.8968

hj@hjosephs= on.com

 

- ------=_NextPart_001_003C_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0-- - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-ID: R0lGODlhHgABAHcAACH/C01TT0ZGSUNFOS4wDQAAAAFzUkdCAK7OHOkAIf8LTVNPRkZJQ0U5LjAY AAAADG1zT1BNU09GRklDRTkuMALxmbSWACH/C01TT0ZGSUNFOS4wGAAAAAxjbVBQSkNtcDA3MTIC AAIBPjG4mQAsAAAAAB4AAQCB2NjY0NDQAQIDAQIDAgiEHZmHGgxcKAA7 - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0 Content-Type: image/gif; name="image001.gif" Content-ID: R0lGODlhHgABAHcAACH/C01TT0ZGSUNFOS4wDQAAAAFzUkdCAK7OHOkAIf8LTVNPRkZJQ0U5LjAY AAAADG1zT1BNU09GRklDRTkuMALxmbSWACH/C01TT0ZGSUNFOS4wGAAAAAxjbVBQSkNtcDA3MTIC AAIBPjG4mQAsAAAAAB4AAQCB2NjY0NDQAQIDAQIDAgiEHZmHGgxcKAA7 - ------=_NextPart_000_003B_01C1EAF5.B57C64C0-- - - - -To subscribe/unsubscribe, email "majordomo@xmission.com" - -In the email body, write "subscribe canslim" or - -"unsubscribe canslim". Do not use quotes in your email. ------------------------------ End of canslim-digest V2 #2355 ****************************** To unsubscribe to canslim-digest, send an email to "majordomo@xmission.com" with "unsubscribe canslim-digest" in the body of the message. For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send "help" to the same address. Do not use quotes in your message.